The Top 19 clubs come from three leagues and four countries. The Top 19 clubs in the UEFA coefficients come from eight countries.

Click to expand...

Wonder how different this would be if CONCACAF had a second-tier competition. Imagine a 16-team knockout stage in the CONCACAF Liga Americana that featured Saprissa, Herediano, San Francisco, Central, Motagua, Olimpia, Municipal, and Arabe Unido along with 8 group stage qualifiers.

I think that caliber of team could compete well against, for example, Atlas, Chiapas, New England, etc.

The new top seeds largely improve their chances; Herediano and Olimpia both get pretty easy groups, while New York, Portland, and Dallas all have an uphill climb to the knockouts.

If I'm running a big club in a Central American federation, I'm clamoring for a change to a format like this. Herediano, for example, have been far better in this tournament, historically, than any of the MLS representatives, but they're treated like anyone else from Costa Rica. As a result, they're saddled with Tigres in real life. They deserve better than that.

I like coefficient-based draws, but I think that might be a little counter-productive in the current CCL format where only one team from each group advances. Since the three-team-groups were put into effect, the team that came in top-ranked has almost always been the one to advance, so doing a coefficient-based draw would likely further isolate the top 7-10 teams in the region above the rest.

Club Movement
- Herediano over UANL and Los Angeles
- Monterrey over Los Angeles, tied with UANL
- Pachuca over Queretaro, Montreal, and Olimpia
- UNAM over San Jose and Comunicaciones
- Portland over San Jose, Comunicaciones, and First-time Mexican qualifier
- New York over Arabe Unido and Municipal
- Toronto over Xelaju
- Vancouver over Toronto, Xelaju, and Cartagines
- Dallas over Toronto, Xelaju, and Cartagines
- San Francisco over L.A. Firpo
- San Miguelito over FAS
- Plaza Amador over Santa Tecla and Verdes

Here's a comparison of the distributions of ArsenalMetro's club coefficients to the UEFA club coefficients through 2015-2016:

Amount of clubs other than the top club with at least 80 percent of the top coefficient: 0 in CONCACAF, 3 in UEFA
Amount of clubs other than the top club with at least 60 percent of the top coefficient: 7 in CONCACAF, 8 in UEFA
Amount of clubs other than the top club with at least 50 percent of the top coefficient: 11 in CONCACAF, 17 in UEFA
Amount of clubs other than the top club with at least 40 percent of the top coefficient: 19 in CONCACAF, 23 in UEFA
Amount of clubs other than the top club with at least 20 percent of the top coefficient: 34 in CONCACAF, 60 in UEFA
Amount of clubs other than the top club with at least 10 percent of the top coefficient: 48 in CONCACAF, 107 in UEFA

CONCACAF starts out with more and then UEFA grows much faster. That's because UEFA has 233 clubs competiting in 2016-2017 (it was about that amount for the five seasons before that) and CONCACAF has 24 clubs competing. It's not a fair comparison, but I made it anyway. For both confederations, I only included clubs. I didn't include coefficients for something like "first time Costa Rican qualifier."

I'm not saying ArsenalMetro's coefficients are wrong, but look at Houston. They're 18th in the CONCACAF coefficients and 19th in MLS in points per game.

The United States, Canada, and Costa Rica are close for the second best league. I decided to look at the top non-Mexican club in each CCL to see what countries those clubs are from:

2008-2009: Puerto Rico Islanders was the only non-Mexican Semifinalist.

2009-2010: The four Semifinalists were all Mexican. If you rank the Quarterfinal losers by aggregate goal differential and then goals scored, Columbus was the best non-Mexican club. They lost their aggregate 5-4, Comunicaciones lost their aggregate 3-2, and the other two aggregates were decided by at least 3 goals. Comunicaciones lost to eventual champion Pachuca. Columbus lost to Toluca, who lost to Pachuca in the Semifinals. The UEFA club coefficients treat all accomplishments in the same round the same regardless of the difficulty of the opponent, so I'm going to follow that and declare Columbus the top non-Mexican club that season.

2010-2011: Real Salt Lake lost in the Final and was the top non-Mexican club.

2011-2012: Toronto FC was the only non-Mexican Semifinalist.

2012-2013: Both Semifinals had a Mexican club beating an American club. Seattle lost their aggregate 2-1, and Los Angeles lost their aggregate 3-1, so that makes Seattle the top non-Mexican club.

2013-2014: Alajuelense was the only non-Mexican Semifinalist.

2014-2015: Montreal lost in the Final and was the top non-Mexican club.

2015-2016: The four Quarterfinals all had a Mexican club beating an American club. If you rank the Quarterfinal losers by aggregate goal differential and then goals scored, Seattle was the best non-Mexican club. They lost their aggregate 5-3. The other three aggregates were 3-1, 3-1, and 4-0.

For those eight CCLs, the top non-Mexican club came from the United States four times, from Canada two times, from Costa Rica once, and from Puerto Rico once. Seattle was the only club to be the top non-Mexican club twice.

I'm not saying ArsenalMetro's coefficients are wrong, but look at Houston. They're 18th in the CONCACAF coefficients and 19th in MLS in points per game.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not anywhere near an apples-to-apples comparison. First, these rankings are a five-year aggregate, while Houston's current 19th place in MLS is literally just one season. Second, how teams performs in their domestic league aren't necessarily how they perform in the domestic cup aren't necessarily how they perform in international cups.

Well, that's not anywhere near an apples-to-apples comparison. First, these rankings are a five-year aggregate, while Houston's current 19th place in MLS is literally just one season. Second, how teams performs in their domestic league aren't necessarily how they perform in the domestic cup aren't necessarily how they perform in international cups.

Click to expand...

And the number holding Houston up that high is almost entirely their 2012-13 performance, which drops after this year. At the start of next year's rankings, they'll only be 7.5 points above the baseline US number, which puts them in Municipal territory. If they fail to qualify again (looks likely, based on the overall club trajectory), they'll fall into that baseline US number and not even warrant recognition in the club rankings (see: Chicago, Philadelphia).

But doesn't CONCACAF only need to do the ranking once a year before the start of the CCL?

Click to expand...

True, but that was my point - this sounds like a one-time ruling to determine how the "new" format will look, and once that happens they don't roll the pattern to later years. That is, they say the places in the two phases will be determined by the nine-year history of the current format - and that statement can't be true next year, since there will be ten years of history at that time. There's nothing in that link that suggests they'll redistribute or even reconsider redistributing places based on new data after this first initial analysis.

True, but that was my point - this sounds like a one-time ruling to determine how the "new" format will look, and once that happens they don't roll the pattern to later years. That is, they say the places in the two phases will be determined by the nine-year history of the current format - and that statement can't be true next year, since there will be ten years of history at that time. There's nothing in that link that suggests they'll redistribute or even reconsider redistributing places based on new data after this first initial analysis.

Click to expand...

Well, I am hoping they do revise the ranking every year, but you are probably right in thinking it will not be redistributed annually.